GeForce GTX 570 Rev. 2 vs Radeon RX 480
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 480 and GeForce GTX 570 Rev. 2, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 480 outperforms 570 Rev. 2 by a whopping 211% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 304 | 609 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 13.65 | 0.92 |
| Power efficiency | 10.46 | 2.30 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Ellesmere | GF110 |
| GCN generation | 4th Gen | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 29 June 2016 (9 years ago) | 7 December 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $229 | $349 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 480 has 1384% better value for money than GTX 570 Rev. 2.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2304 | 480 |
| Compute units | 36 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1120 MHz | 732 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1266 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,700 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 219 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 182.3 | 43.92 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.834 TFLOPS | 1.405 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 40 |
| TMUs | 144 | 60 |
| L1 Cache | 576 KB | 960 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 640 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Bus support | n/a | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 240 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 2x 6-pin |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | + | - |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1280 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 8000 MHz | 950 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224 GB/s | 152.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | 2.0 | + |
| DisplayPort support | 1.4HDR | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | n/a | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| Enduro | n/a | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | n/a | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | n/a | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| Mantle | n/a | - |
| CUDA | - | 2.0 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 77
+221%
| 24−27
−221%
|
| 1440p | 51
+219%
| 16−18
−219%
|
| 4K | 36
+260%
| 10−12
−260%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.97
+389%
| 14.54
−389%
|
| 1440p | 4.49
+386%
| 21.81
−386%
|
| 4K | 6.36
+449%
| 34.90
−449%
|
- RX 480 has 389% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 480 has 386% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 480 has 449% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+237%
|
35−40
−237%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+221%
|
14−16
−221%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+215%
|
27−30
−215%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+237%
|
35−40
−237%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+221%
|
14−16
−221%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 80−85
+242%
|
24−27
−242%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+224%
|
21−24
−224%
|
| Fortnite | 207
+218%
|
65−70
−218%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100
+233%
|
30−33
−233%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+261%
|
18−20
−261%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+233%
|
24−27
−233%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+238%
|
45−50
−238%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+215%
|
27−30
−215%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+237%
|
35−40
−237%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 285
+217%
|
90−95
−217%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+221%
|
14−16
−221%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+226%
|
35−40
−226%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 80−85
+242%
|
24−27
−242%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+224%
|
21−24
−224%
|
| Fortnite | 79
+229%
|
24−27
−229%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 93
+244%
|
27−30
−244%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+261%
|
18−20
−261%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 78
+225%
|
24−27
−225%
|
| Metro Exodus | 41
+242%
|
12−14
−242%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+233%
|
24−27
−233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 78
+225%
|
24−27
−225%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+238%
|
45−50
−238%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+215%
|
27−30
−215%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+221%
|
14−16
−221%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+226%
|
35−40
−226%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 80−85
+242%
|
24−27
−242%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+224%
|
21−24
−224%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 77
+221%
|
24−27
−221%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45
+221%
|
14−16
−221%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+214%
|
14−16
−214%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+238%
|
45−50
−238%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 65
+261%
|
18−20
−261%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+258%
|
12−14
−258%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160
+233%
|
45−50
−233%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 37
+270%
|
10−11
−270%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+238%
|
8−9
−238%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+215%
|
55−60
−215%
|
| Valorant | 241
+221%
|
75−80
−221%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+228%
|
18−20
−228%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 45−50
+229%
|
14−16
−229%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+236%
|
14−16
−236%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+225%
|
16−18
−225%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+220%
|
10−11
−220%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 39
+225%
|
12−14
−225%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 36
+260%
|
10−11
−260%
|
| Metro Exodus | 15
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27
+238%
|
8−9
−238%
|
| Valorant | 120
+243%
|
35−40
−243%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+220%
|
10−11
−220%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 88
+226%
|
27−30
−226%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 21−24
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+243%
|
7−8
−243%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+260%
|
10−11
−260%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 18
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
This is how RX 480 and GTX 570 Rev. 2 compete in popular games:
- RX 480 is 221% faster in 1080p
- RX 480 is 219% faster in 1440p
- RX 480 is 260% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.43 | 6.56 |
| Recency | 29 June 2016 | 7 December 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1280 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 219 Watt |
RX 480 has a 211.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 540% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 46% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 480 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 570 Rev. 2 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
